Some argue

Some argue is Wikipedese for "I think". It is a convenient way to bypass NPOV on Wikipedia. These are also known as "weasel words". This is a favorite tactic of Faux News.

Improper usage of weasel words can backfire, causing a "fact" to be as null and void as if someone were to say "in my opinion," inevitably causing your argument to be dismissed and looked at as speculation, which is not a appreciated in forums of discerning fact rather than opinion. In the event you were to be discovered using "some argue that," the opposing debator can shut you down with one word: "sauce?".

Some say this is the last thing you see when you die...

...others argue that Encyclopædia Dramatica is full of irrelevant pornography images. Obviously not true.

Some argue that weasels are cute...

...others argue that the planet is woman shaped.

We must purge all Wikis from Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions Weasel Words!

The Subtle Difference

• POV: George W. Bush is a fucking asshole.
• NPOV: Some argue that George W. Bush is a fucking asshole.

• POV: SAILOR MOON RULEZ!!!!!!!!!!1111111 LOLOLOLOLOL
• NPOV: Some argue that SAILOR MOON RULEZ!!!!!!!!!!1111111 LOLOLOLOLOL

• POV: The Jews secretly bred Natalie Portman as a half-breed Jewish princess to rule planet Earth under the reign of our Illuminati reptile masters from planet Vulcan, using the Jedi powers she gained from having sex with Darth Vader.
• NPOV: Some argue that the Jews secretly bred Natalie Portman as a half-breed Jewish princess to rule planet Earth under the reign of our Illuminati reptile masters from planet Vulcan, using the Jedi powers she gained from having sex with Darth Vader.

• POV: Jews did WTC
• NPOV: Jews did WTC
• Fact: Jews did WTC

• POV: "You are a cocksucker."
• NPOV: "Some argue that you are a cocksucker."

The "some argue" experience

See it for yourself via Google: https://encrypted.google.com/#q=site:wikipedia.org+%22some+argue%22

Real search results as of October 17, 2005:

1. Some argue that a more appropriate standard should be fairness and accuracy.
2. Some would argue that humans have an amount of hubris.
3. Some argue that hate speech must be regulated to protect members of groups.
4. Some argue that small gardens and greenhouses should be favored.
5. Some argue that anti-LGBT prejudice is immoral or unwise above and beyond the effects on that class of people.
6. Some people would argue that the movement is too closely related to communism.
7. Some argue that even terrorism has undergone globalization.
8. Some argue that this is an advantage.
9. Some argue that those who set up access points without adding security measures are offering their connection, sometimes unintentionally, to the community.
10. Some argue that a reading of the first two chapters of Genesis produces the impression of two separate accounts of the same event.

In conclusion, as Wikipedia itself puts it, some argue that allowing anyone to edit makes Wikipedia an unreliable work, or more simply some argue that Wikipedia sux.

NOTE: "Some Argue" should not be confused with French Dadaist poet Sam Argeu.

Variations

Variations on the "some argue" concept can be used to insert an entire flamewar into the article. Here are some important words to remember when conducting a flamewar inside an article, to keep it NPOV:

• Synonyms
  • Purportedly
  • Presumably
  • Arguably
  • Some suggest (or claim, posit, feel, think, believe, hold, et cetera)
• Alternatives for some
  • Many people feel
  • Critics say
  • Proponents/opponents believe
  • Research suggests
  • The vast majority think
  • A small minority holds
  • It turns out that (a personal favorite of renowned author Douglas Adams)
• Key words and phrases
  • However; although; but
  • It should be noted that
  • If... then; therefore; as a result

These can be readily interspersed with other ideas, for example, if you wanted to troll people by saying "Actually, water is dry," you might come up with something like this to put in your NPOV article:

Proponents of the water is wet doctrine or concept claim that their belief is correct,^[1] however, critics point out that the vast majority of the doctrine is false.^[2] Critics note that their claim suffers from circular logic, and accuse proponents of using ad hominem to further their argument.^[3] Believers often lash out aggressively at those who point out that water is, in fact, dry. "Wet" water is often an assumed position, by definition,^[4] and therefore critics argue the proponent's argument is flawed, in definitional terms.^[2] Ice, for example, is one of the 15 known crystalline phases of water^[1] which, at -204°C, is often described as dry at that temperature.^[5] As a result, proponents of the "water is wet" dogma are seen by some as ill-informed on the nature of water.^[6] The main proponents of this dogma work in water-related industry,^[7] leading some to believe that the water is wet concept is more likely propaganda.^[8]

Not To Be Confused With

• Some Say

External Links

• How to play Wikipedia (Gaming the system)
• Wikipedia's own suggestions of weasel words to use
• Wikipedia-ready Some argue article

Some argue is part of a series on Wikipedia Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.